# My local B&M on the news



## bobbyg29-cl (Apr 21, 2007)

A statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars went into effect in Arizona on May 1 yet the anti-smoke nazis are still whining.....

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=3B3AE2B1BFAE616500F5FAD373B0FBF8?contentId=3127627&version=9&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

I find it pretty funny that an owner of a tanning salon is complaining about possible health effects to his customers of second hand smoke....ever heard of melanoma asshat!


----------



## mrgatorman (Mar 23, 2007)

Kills me...Smoke bellowing into his salon. Its that type of pissy attitude and whiny crap that makes them win...Most counties, states and federal govts only address the loud obnoxious. Bummer. but the good news is that he just has to deal with it. Good for the B&M


----------



## lawdaug_1 (Apr 19, 2007)

Dude What [email protected]#%$%@ 
You got to be kidding me. I dont what to say.


----------



## JohnR (Apr 1, 2007)

Rant mode on. In light of the Arizona ban and the pending ban in Illinois, it occurred to me that these State efforts to "save the children" are naive and shallow. Smoking and cigars are simply insignificant compared to the TRUE threats facing our children. If the states want to actually help the children, what they need to do is get a handle on is substance abuse and the rampant divorce and illegitimacy rates among the parents. Nothing screws up a family faster than substance abuse and the lack of a stable two parent home - two things that are very difficult to fix via legislation. The notion that you are protecting the children by going after tobacco is laughable when measured against these two factors. How many twice, thrice, or quadruple divorced parents are clamoring for these stupid tobacco bans? Hey, how about cleaning up your own life and stop the revolving door of boyfriends that are coming in and out of your kids' lives? How about a little personal responsibility when it comes to your little "Desperate Housewives/Young and the Restless" romantic adventures that leave your kids without a MAN in the house? No, that would be "no fun" and would interfere with "finding yourself". Rant mode off.


----------



## boxer757 (Apr 18, 2007)

JohnRider said:


> Rant mode on. In light of the Arizona ban and the pending ban in Illinois, it occurred to me that these State efforts to "save the children" are naive and shallow. Smoking and cigars are simply insignificant compared to the TRUE threats facing our children. If the states want to actually help the children, what they need to do is get a handle on is substance abuse and the rampant divorce and illegitimacy rates among the parents. Nothing screws up a family faster than substance abuse and the lack of a stable two parent home - two things that are very difficult to fix via legislation. The notion that you are protecting the children by going after tobacco is laughable when measured against these two factors. How many twice, thrice, or quadruple divorced parents are clamoring for these stupid tobacco bans? Hey, how about cleaning up your own life and stop the revolving door of boyfriends that are coming in and out of your kids' lives? How about a little personal responsibility when it comes to your little "Desperate Housewives/Young and the Restless" romantic adventures that leave your kids without a MAN in the house? No, that would be "no fun" and would interfere with "finding yourself". Rant mode off.


Righteous rant my friend, very good points!

EDIT: Just watched the video. I would like to stub out a burning cigar in Mr. Tan Man's eye... (sorry I have some violent tendencies )


----------



## g8trbone (Apr 26, 2007)

JohnRider said:


> Rant mode on. In light of the Arizona ban and the pending ban in Illinois, it occurred to me that these State efforts to "save the children" are naive and shallow. Smoking and cigars are simply insignificant compared to the TRUE threats facing our children. If the states want to actually help the children, what they need to do is get a handle on is substance abuse and the rampant divorce and illegitimacy rates among the parents. Nothing screws up a family faster than substance abuse and the lack of a stable two parent home - two things that are very difficult to fix via legislation. The notion that you are protecting the children by going after tobacco is laughable when measured against these two factors. How many twice, thrice, or quadruple divorced parents are clamoring for these stupid tobacco bans? Hey, how about cleaning up your own life and stop the revolving door of boyfriends that are coming in and out of your kids' lives? How about a little personal responsibility when it comes to your little "Desperate Housewives/Young and the Restless" romantic adventures that leave your kids without a MAN in the house? No, that would be "no fun" and would interfere with "finding yourself". Rant mode off.


Agree!!!
Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## dHUTCH (May 1, 2007)

i kinda giggled a little bit when i heard the tanning salon owner talking


----------



## Ceedee (Jun 2, 2006)

JohnRider said:


> Rant mode on. In light of the Arizona ban and the pending ban in Illinois, it occurred to me that these State efforts to "save the children" are naive and shallow. Smoking and cigars are simply insignificant compared to the TRUE threats facing our children. If the states want to actually help the children, what they need to do is get a handle on is substance abuse and the rampant divorce and illegitimacy rates among the parents. Nothing screws up a family faster than substance abuse and the lack of a stable two parent home - two things that are very difficult to fix via legislation. The notion that you are protecting the children by going after tobacco is laughable when measured against these two factors. How many twice, thrice, or quadruple divorced parents are clamoring for these stupid tobacco bans? Hey, how about cleaning up your own life and stop the revolving door of boyfriends that are coming in and out of your kids' lives? How about a little personal responsibility when it comes to your little "Desperate Housewives/Young and the Restless" romantic adventures that leave your kids without a MAN in the house? No, that would be "no fun" and would interfere with "finding yourself". Rant mode off.


Right on John!

CD


----------



## prophetic_joe (May 5, 2007)

Excellent rant my friend now if only we could get the narrow-minded anti-tobacco zealots to look at things in that sort of light.


----------



## mrgatorman (Mar 23, 2007)

Im always amazed at those who focus on their individual rights and forget the rights of everyone. I cant tell you ow many times i hear "My rights" "I have the right". The funny thing is our rights are individual, but corporate as well. Ones rights are notmore or less important that anothers. The rights of a business owner, the rights of a child and the rights of adults. None of those are the focus...its the people who scream the most and whine the loudest who gets the attention. Unfortunately, their the minoritya nd all they ave is the noise level. They dont have the numbers, not like the opposition does. But we (the opposition) dont stand up for our rights, we loose. I am to blame like the next guy. I vote, but thats really it. i dont participate in ralleys or call my senators or reps. I dont donate money to pacs or lobbys and I dont take a stand when a B&M closes down. Shame on me.


----------



## Starsky (Mar 29, 2007)

I guess I'm sort of ignorant. Could someone please tell me why tobacco companies are allowing this to happen. Have they found something more profitable than cigarettes? You'd think they'd be pouring millions of dollars into fighting this trend.


----------



## Kaybee (Apr 29, 2007)

Starsky said:


> I guess I'm sort of ignorant. Could someone please tell me why tobacco companies are allowing this to happen. Have they found something more profitable than cigarettes? You'd think they'd be pouring millions of dollars into fighting this trend.


I know that Phillip Morris spends millions of dollars a year for help quit campaign. I hate to say this but I don't think that the companies can have a say in this it is all politics.

No matter what happens people will always smoke. Even if you can't do it in stores...etc

Kay


----------



## Cigar Diva (May 14, 2007)

*Follow The Money!*



Starsky said:


> I guess I'm sort of ignorant. Could someone please tell me why tobacco companies are allowing this to happen. Have they found something more profitable than cigarettes? You'd think they'd be pouring millions of dollars into fighting this trend.


While the federal government continues to file lawsuits against the tobacco companies (costing them (and using our tax dollars to do this) millions to fight and effectively reducing funds available to fight bans) by charging them with violating laws that were not even laws at the time of the violations (violations in the 1950's and laws enacted in the mid 1960's), another big business has quietly planned, executed effectively, financed the well funded anti-smoking zealots.

The Johnson & Johnson company owns I believe ALL of the pharmaceutical nicotine products on the market today. Through my research, if I understand it correctly, the RWJ Foundation is a major stock holder in Johnson & Johnson and grants its profits almost exclusively to anti-smoking organizations ($990,000,000.00 over the past 10 years). If they change the nicotine addiction from cigarettes to pharmaceutical nicotine products (Commit lozenges, Nicorett gum, Nicoderm patches, &#8230;.) then they will have taken over the market share of the profits the tobacco companies use to get. There is a complete marketing strategy, posted on the web, instructing pharmacies how and what to sell (numerous other products) to persons buying pharmaceutical nicotine.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/npreports/smokeless.htm
http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=257504


----------



## The Bruce (Mar 7, 2006)

Starsky said:


> Could someone please tell me why tobacco companies are allowing this to happen.


The Salon owner said it all. The health effects of second hand smoke were used to get the topic attention. But the reason these things pass is that people really don't care about the health effects, they care about the smoke's smell. At the distance the Salon is from the Cigar shop the density of smoke is way to low to even be a concern. The little tan looser was crying about the smell, not the health of his customers. There is not real way to beat this until we can tell people to stop whining about the smell. A friend of mine voted to ban smoking everywhere, when I confronted him with reason he just said: "I don't care, I can't stand the smell." There is no right not to be offended by speech nor smell. People need to toughen up, it's all Barney's fault.

Now onto the health effects. The paper used as the source for the health effects for smoking was taken to a federal court to have it vetted. The judge ruled that the paper claiming second hand smoke was a health threat cherry picked it's data and overstated it's conclusion. So there is a way to beat the health risk. But it's not about the health; it's about the smell. We can go on and on about personal rights and responsibility, but until we stop being namby pamby people where the littlest of offenses will grow to effect everything.
(Here is a link to some info on that case:  clicky.)

Now for the hypocrisy. Ultimately the tar in the smoke is what causes the lung damage and eventually cancer. So if the government is so concerned about this health effect why is it that roofers and road builders are allowed to work with boiling tar that produces a lot more tar vapor than the second hand smoke? We should ban roads and leak proof roofs because it's a health hazard to those who work on them.

So what has this ban really gotten Arizona? I'll tell you. Now we have more drunk people outside of bars smoking cigarettes. That sounds like more of a hazard than second hand smoke.


----------



## Click2Riff (May 19, 2007)

bobbyg29 said:


> ...ever heard of melanoma asshat!


That is hilarious! :lol:


----------



## thisone326 (May 10, 2007)

Ohio has a smoking ban in restruants and public buildings, much like the Arizona ban. I go to college in Ohio and i can't even smoke anything (cigarettes, hookah, pipes, or cigars) in my fraternity house cause its technicially a campus building and we have a cook that we pay, so its considered a "restruant." Its rediculous. I don;t smoke often, but i love the relaxed feeling of sitting in a leather chair with a scotch or whiskey and such, but i have to go outside or to the B&M (which cuts out the drinking aspect for me, since thats a little hard for me to do with my age). 

we've actually taken a stand at the B&M by smoking right outside the door...since the sidewalk is actually owned by the B&M we;re allowed to smoke there. Most of the people ive talked to....smoker or not...think the ban is 100% stupid. bars don;t feel the same, the smoky atmosphere while playing pool is necessary for it to be a good bar.

bastards!


----------

